PARTINI TRI HANDAYANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 508/2022

[2026] HKCFI 2914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 508 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 8 August 2024, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing her non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 8 April 2025 (but was somehow only recently brought to the court’s attention) seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file her appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 22 August 2024, and hence she was some 7 ½ months late with her intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 7 ½ months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which she explained in her affirmation that her such delay was due to her lack of knowledge and insufficient resources.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 8 August 2024 to the Applicant’s then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, while lack of knowledge or resources can never be accepted as any valid reason or justification for one’s failure to comply with the procedural rules, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for her such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant has also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or in her affirmation. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in her intended appeal.

7.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse her application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss her summons.